The European Union as an International Actor: Strengths of the European Civilian Power

184 Pages·2004·0.84 MB·English

Katja Keisala
The European Union as
an International Actor:
Strengths of the European Civilian Power
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
To be presented, with the permission of
the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Tampere,
for public discussion in lecture room B661, Yliopistonkatu 38,
on December 11th, 2004, at 12 o’clock.
U n i v e r s i t y o f T a m p e r e
T a m p e r e 2 0 0 4
ADADEMIC DISSERTATION
University of Tampere,
Department of Political Science and International Relations
FINLAND
Copyright © Katja Keisala
Editorial Board: Matti Alestalo
Marjatta Hietala
Jouni Häkli
Briitta Koskiaho
Jyrki Käkönen
Eveliina Permi
Sales
Bookshop TAJU
Yliopistonkatu 38, 33014 Tampereen yliopisto
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
email taju@uta.fi
http://granum.uta.fi
Cover: Cityoffset Oy
Layout: Aila Helin
Printed dissertation
ISBN 951-44-6156-8
Electronic dissertation
Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 400
ISBN 951-44-6157-6
ISSN 1456-954X
http://acta.uta.fi
Cityoffset Oy
Tampere 2004
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
More than the main product, my thesis is a by-product of my life during
the last six years that has been full of events and new turns. I have had
only a few academic contacts, and most of the people I wish to thank
have been important to me other than for professional reasons, although
they all have participated in this project by off ering support and practical
help.
First I wish to express my gratefulness to the reviewers, Iver B.
Neumann and Hanna Ojanen, for the valuable comments that helped
me to fi nish my thesis. I am deeply indebted also to my supervisor Jean
Monet professor Jyrki Käkönen, who has not only off ered professional
and scientifi c guidance but also supported me in my choices in life that
have been diffi cult to reconcile with the academic environment.
I am very grateful to my mother Riitta Lassila, who, over many years,
has taken care of Monika my daughter off ering me time to write and
rest. Many thanks also to my sister, who took care of my children when
I was making the fi nal changes to my thesis. I am indebted also to my
father and his wife for the same reason.
I am especially grateful to my “jeune fi lle au-pair” Miia Hänninen
who has taken care of my daughter – and of me – both in Finland and
France. She accompanied me through the darkest time of my life, for that
I am indebted to her forever. I owe special thanks also to my very good
friends Elina Penttinen and Niina Repo who have off ered the shoulder
that I have needed a lot during these years.
I am grateful to my husband Remberto Martínez for off ering joy and
hope. His existence strengthens my belief that compromises are not
worth making. I wish to thank my three children for teaching me how to
be a good human being and take care of others – it is the most diffi cult
lesson of my life.
I owe special thanks to Roland Caldbeck for proof reading my thesis
and to Aila Helin for the layout.
Th is research has been fi nancially supported by the University of
Turku, the University of Tampere and the city of Tampere. Part of
the research has been made within the doctoral school for cultural
interaction and integration.

C
ONTENTS
1. Dwarf, adolescent or superpower?
European Union on the international fi eld ....................................7
1.1. Th e EU in the system of states .........................................................8
1.2. A foreign policy actor ....................................................................13
1.3. A civilian power .............................................................................16
1.4. More than a state ...........................................................................20
2. Agents and structures in the international system ..............................23
2.1. Social structures and agents ...........................................................23
2.2. Th e problem of agents and structures .............................................28
2.3. Th e social system of international politics ......................................33
2.4. Properties of a state ........................................................................38
3. Th e international system – a system of states? .....................................43
3.1. Th e anarchic system of states .........................................................47
3.2. Globalization overrules the Westphalian system .............................52
3.3. An emerging common identity in Europe ......................................58
4. Th e European Union in the international system:
earlier approaches ................................................................................67
4.1. From the debate between realism and liberalism to the debate
between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism ....................70
4.2. Concepts of actorness and the EU .................................................80
4.3. Constructivism ..............................................................................86
4.4. Th e EU – an anomaly forever? .......................................................96
5. Th e EU as a foreign policy actor ........................................................105
5.1. From political cooperation to the CFSP .......................................107
5.2. Th e EU´s foreign policy capabilities .............................................114
5.3. Case study: the EU´s enlargement policy towards
Central and Eastern Europe .........................................................140
5.4. Strengths and weaknesses of the EU
as a foreign policy actor ...............................................................154
6. Th e European Union, more than a state ............................................161
6.1. Th e EU is compatible with the international system ....................162
6.2. Th e EU is facing a challenge of democracy ..................................166
References ...............................................................................................171

1.
D , ?
WARF ADOLESCENT OR SUPERPOWER
T E U
HE UROPEAN NION ON THE INTERNATIONAL FIELD
It seems to be a part of common knowledge that the European Union1
is an economic giant but a political dwarf. Although none can claim that
the EU does not possess signifi cant resources, for some reason these
resources do not seem to help the EU to have much infl uence in foreign
policy matters. Despite its large network of diplomatic relations, and its
position as one of the most signifi cant aid donors and trading partners
in the world, many suggest that it has not succeeded in its attempts to
develop its economic infl uence also into a political one. Th e EU is often
compared to the U.S. in foreign policy matters, and in this comparison
the EU seems to be clearly the much weaker player; whereas the U.S.
can reach the decision to solve an international dispute by using military
force, the EU appears to be unable to reach a common understanding
concerning such a situation and in particular ways to solve it.
Th ere are certain theoretical assumptions behind the conclusion
according to which the EU is a political dwarf. Th e fi rst one clearly
claims that economics can be isolated from politics. According to the
second assumption, a foreign policy actor cannot be effi cient without a
military dimension − some even doubt if there could be a foreign policy
actor without military resources. Although states without military
resources exist, some kind of military dimension is often seen as a
necessary element of a state, and statehood itself is considered to be a
prerequisite for an international agency. Because the EU is not a state,
and does not have the same capabilities that states have, or not at least
all of them, it is seen as unable to act as a coherent and powerful foreign
policy player. Still, economic issues aff ect foreign policy aims, and foreign
policy is often executed by using economic means. Th e EU in particular
connects its aid and trade policies with the larger aims of the Common
1 Th e European Union (EU), established by Article A of the Treaty of the EU (TEU,
or Maastricht Treaty), is a new entity, which operates through its component parts,
the European Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and
the Cooperation on Justice and Home Aff airs, and in some cases through member
states (Bradley & Sutton 1994, 237). By the European Community (EC) I refer to
the EU’s fi rst pillar, which existed independently before the EU.
7
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) by making aid and trade contracts
conditional upon certain democratic and human rights standards. In
addition, foreign policy is usually executed by non-military means;
military power is actually used quite rarely, and mostly foreign policy is
conducted through every-day practices between ministries. However,
there seems to be a strong connection between a state, an actor and
military resources. Th e connection is so strong, that being an infl uential
economic actor created strong incentives to develop the military aspect
to the “same” level as the economic one; this is seemingly in contradiction
with the theoretical assumptions (also presented in this thesis) claiming
that the signifi cance of military resources is declining.
In my study I wish to examine if the EU is such an unfi t actor on the
international fi eld. I will analyze how the international system (of states)
defi nes the properties of actors, and how the defi nition is changing.
Th ere are two basic questions in this work: First, what position does the
international system off er to the EU? Secondly, how does the EU utilize the
position given to it? To fi nd answers, I will examine a state as an actor, the
international system of states, and the properties and actions of the EU.
1.1. Th e EU in the system of states
Th e EU has been compared to a state, but it is still unclear what a state is.
Although a state is a central concept in the study of international relations
(IR), scholars do not share one defi nition of it. States as historical units
have changed, and so has the meaning of being a state. Scholars have
used other concepts, such as sovereignty or autonomy, to clarify the
state’s “essence”, but also the meaning of those is vague.2 Th is has made
Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach to argue that “[t]he state
has so many diff erent, competing, and loaded meanings that it is largely
useless for theory-building”3. I will not make an attempt to defi ne a state,
instead it will be analyzed how the international system constructs its
agents, and how the state has retained its position as the main actor
in the international fi eld – or has it? Th ere are also other entities that
might be understood as international actors, such as multinational
2 See Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach (1988), especially the chapter
“Th e State as an Obstacle to International Th eory”.
3 Ferguson & Mansbach 1996, 10.
8
corporations, and non-governmental organizations or international
organizations, the latter being another option for organizing the EU.
Th ey are, however, secondary actors on the international fi eld, since
their power is dependent on states, and they must act in the framework
of rules defi ned by states. States could, for example, decide to set more
strict restrictions on trade, multinational corporations could not do
much about this. In the case of international institutions, on the other
hand, states decide how much power they have and what they use their
power for. Hence, international politics is inter-national by defi nition.
Since the international system is a system of states, the position of
a state as a primary actor seems to be universal and eternal. Indeed,
concentrating on states and state power does not leave room for studying
the change. Still, a state is only one form of a polity among many, and
during the history many diff erent polities have been dominant. As
Ferguson and Mansbach put it, “there is no logical, historical, or empirical
justifi cation for universalizing the Westphalian polity”.4 Th ey defi ne
a polity as a political organization that has, fi rst, a distinct identity;
secondly, a capacity to mobilize persons and their resources for political
purposes; and thirdly, a degree of institutionalization and hierarchy
(leaders and constituents)5. Th eir analysis corresponds to Alexander
Wendt’s explanation concerning the requirements which a structure
must fulfi ll to be an agent (presented in the chapter two). Whilst Wendt
argues that an agent must have recognition of other actors (external
sovereignty) to become an actor in the international fi eld, Ferguson and
Mansbach suggest that only a Westphalian polity is recognized as an
actor.
Th e Westphalian state is only one polity type, distinguished less
by criteria focusing on loyalties or resources than by legal claim
to legitimacy and the formal recognition of other members of the
“sovereign club” that is what it claims to be. Unfortunately, there
is no offi cial certifi cation board comparable to the community of
Westphalian states to provide formal recognition for other polities.6
In this thesis it is claimed that the EU is a new kind of a polity
challenging the position of a Westphalian state. If the EU succeeds in
4 Ferguson & Mansbach 1996, 16.
5 Ibid., 34.
6 Ibid., 401.
9
this, it will have consequences for the whole international system. Yet, to
be able to act in the system, the EU must not only challenge the position
of a state, but also adapt to the requirements of the actorness; the EU
must resemble a state in some respects to get recognized as an actor.
It is necessary to defi ne some of terms to be used. Th e term “polity”
will be used here to refer to political organizations that fulfi ll certain
requirements (defi ned above and more carefully in the chapter two).
However, since the term “polity” lacks an external dimension, I will
use the term “actor” to refer a polity (or an agent) that is recognized as
an actor on the international political fi eld, and who executes external
policy – and most importantly, foreign policy − of its own. According
to this defi nition, actors are always international, since they act on the
international fi eld, but sometimes I use also the concept “international
actor” to emphasize the EU’s ability to make external policy in
contradiction to internal one.
Why do sovereign and territorial states have a right to be the primary
political actors? Th e answer lies partly in the historical conditions of the
international system, and partly in the production of states. Th e origin
and history of the concept of sovereignty, and of the world order based
on it, are closely related to the nature and evolution of the state, and
in particular to development of centralized authority in early-modern
Europe. Most contemporary formulations of the concept are deeply
indebted to the philosophical and theoretical positions advanced during
that era7. As Ferguson and Mansbach put it, “[t]he European conquest
overwhelmed other forms of political organization and produced the
antihistorical idea that the Westphalian polity is a universal form”8.
Th e meaning of sovereignty and the position it entitles are recreated in
discourse.
[W]ays of speaking about state sovereignty reproduce certain
assumptions and resolutions of philosophical and political questions
that are constitutive of the principle of state sovereignty itself.
To speak about state sovereignty is to engage in forms of political
practice, to become caught up in immense powerful forms of political
action that appear to be mere abstractions or ideologies.9
7 Camilleri & Falk 1992, 15.
8 Ferguson & Mansbach 1996, 22.
9 Walker 1990, 169.
10